On 25/06/2013 17:05, Larry Masinter wrote:
I noted:
Consider defining trust in terms of transfer of belief. Party A trusts party B
to
the extent that if B utters statement S and A receives S, that A's belief state
changes to include S. If A trust B perfectly, then A believes everything B
says. If
A doesn't trust B at all, then A ignores what B says, or doesn't believe it, in
any
case.
and Graham replied:
It's true, we are using the word "trust" in different ways. In my 3-year
involvement with the EU iTrust working group [1][2], I saw many different
notions of trust described, but never that one. There was no total consensus
about what trust actually meant, but many participants used the term in the
sense of using trust as an indicator of how they expect some other party to
behave, or how reliable they regard their pronouncements, in the absence of
complete knowledge. ...
But
"how they expect some other to behave"
is better expressed as
"how well they expect some other party to keep its promises to behave
in particular way"
isn't it?
Not necessarily, I think - it may have nothing to do with how they promise to
behave - just how they are expected to behave.
and
"how reliable they regard their pronouncements" is best explained
by "how much do you believe their pronouncements"
Maybe. I already acknowledged an element of belief in the process. But the
trusting process as analyzed by many researchers also takes account of the
exposure to risk if the trust turns out to be misplaced. (I may not believe X,
but still be prepared to act on the basis of X being true if the downside is
small enough.)
And I don't think it is necessary to give up on automating representation and
use of trust without requiring a person to do the "trust" analysis.
(Wow, three negatives!) I think you're saying it's possible to do automated
representation and use trust without involving personal trust judgements.
Maybe, but I don't know how to do that, in general. So I try to approach it in
more manageable, incremental steps.
#g
--
